Slashdot Mirror


When Customer Dissatisfaction Is a Tech Business Model

jammag writes: A new trend has emerged where tech companies have realized that abusing users pays big. Examples include the highly publicized Comcast harassing service call, Facebook "experiments," Twitter timeline tinkering, rude Korean telecoms — tech is an area where the term "customer service" has an Orwellian slant. Isn't it time customer starting fleeing abusive tech outfits?

37 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. Free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry guys, the free market fairy will take care of it.

    1. Re:Free market by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      bought-and-paid-for politicians using the law to favor their friends isn't "the free market"

    2. Re:Free market by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it funny how people who defend capitalism in this day and age like to say that what we have is "crony capitalism" and if we'd just give real capitalism a try for once it would be super awesome.

      What does that sound like?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Free market by Sentrion · · Score: 4, Funny

      No TRUE Scotsman would fall for such a thing.

    4. Re:Free market by Flavianoep · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I find it funny how people who defend capitalism in this day and age like to say that what we have is "crony capitalism" and if we'd just give real capitalism a try for once it would be super awesome.

      It's the same attitude you may have noticed that come from people who defend socialism but when confronted with the flaws of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, or Cuba will claim that those were, nor are, not under real socialism, but something else (tsarism, in the case of Russia).

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    5. Re:Free market by eneville · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indeed, the phrase "you get what you pay" comes to mind. The moment big corporations in the UK (BT, I'm looking at you) off-shored their customer service things went downhill for the ISP. However, in that void PlusNet grew (from Force9) into a very successful ISP who promotes northern broadband and they do indeed have UK call centres who you can understand. They may be marginally more expensive but it goes to show that people in the UK are starting to vote with their feet and choose a company that they can speak to. I'm using PlusNet and BT as an example as they're mostly interchangeable in terms of media.

    6. Re:Free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In general, I agree, except I don't think "keeping prices low" is key. I think "making more money" is key, and "keeping prices low" is a pretty poor strategy for accomplishing that. Raising prices as high as you can without losing market share is the goal, and there are many ways of doing that without giving better service or a better product. Make it hard to leave, buy your competition (knowing there's no such thing as antitrust any more), manipulative marketing (proven to work, yes, even with proud, self-reliant libertarians), clever patent handling... all much cheaper and easier than the iffy, expensive route of providing a better product.

    7. Re:Free market by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No. The execs have realized that they can get fatter paychecks if they eliminate "cost centers" that don't deliver any perceived value. Anyone not working in the executive suite is viewed as a liability to the company and needs to be eliminated to reduce the pesky overhead involved in having real employees.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    8. Re:Free market by twotacocombo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good customer service is expensive.

      Good customer service is less expensive than bad customer service. A smaller call center staffed with decently trained and compensated CSRs is far more cost effective than watching the headcount continuously grow and churn to deal with the increased call volume due to poorly trained staff dumping calls, permaholds, supervisor escalations, previous callers figuring out they've been lied to, etc. At some point, your call center will outgrow its allotted space, and then you'll have to deal with a costly move or additional locations. Both companies I worked for experienced this, one of them had to move TWICE in 4 years, and the cost was mindblowing. Then, as you lose a lot of your customers, there's the cost of downsizing.. all of which could have been avoided by just properly hiring, training, and compensating a solid, core group of people to take care of your customers and make sure they didn't become unhappy with the thought of giving you their money.

    9. Re:Free market by NotSanguine · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. The execs have realized that they can get fatter paychecks if they eliminate "cost centers" that don't deliver positive cash flow. You know, things like infrastructure upgrades, maintenance and customer service.. Anyone not working in the executive suite is viewed as a liability to the company and needs to be eliminated to reduce the pesky overhead involved in having real employees.

      There. FTFY.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    10. Re:Free market by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, I once thought that too.

      But after receiving the same shitty customer "service" from a more expensive phone company, I decided that if I'm to get screwed over, I'm not going to pay extra for it.

      --
      bickerdyke
    11. Re: Free market by bistromath007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The natural result of a truly free market is socialism. Members of a vibrant community tend to realize that they do better when their neighbors do, and empathize with them enough to know that a streak of bad luck could make them the pest in their neighborhood, so it's good to take care of those who fall behind.

      Capitalism is separate from the free market, and a perversion of it. A wealthy member of a community, before this "genius" invention was made, would've been happy to organize large projects for the public good simply for the prestige of having been in charge of them. Now they require that a portion of workers' labor be diverted to them permanently, returning far more value than they ever contributed. This encourages the venture capitalist to go play in other markets, leaving the community that made him with all the money he's stolen from it, and polluting others that he cares even less about.

      While it has made large projects easier to start, those projects have had less and less value to the common people over time. At this point, the labor market is an arrangement whereby you either build something you don't care about for a rich person, or you don't eat. It is functionally indistinguishable from slavery, and it is not meaningfully consensual, given that is harder than ever to be an entrepreneur. We make a big noise about how the internet allows the little guy to make globalism work for him, but in practice what that means is that, in addition to the chokehold multinationals have on every mass market, you're fighting over the scraps of every niche market with literally every other person in the world with a vaguely similar idea.

      Capitalism only benefits the people who won the game before everyone else had a complete grasp of the rules. It won't even work for them forever; the harder they play, the less is left for them to win. Capitalism will one day be remembered mainly as the most efficient way to exploit a community to death. Unfortunately, most of us have to rediscover what a functioning community is first, and that's not going to happen before an economic collapse that kills thousands of white people.

    12. Re: Free market by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      so it's good to take care of those who fall behind.

      And before the government started doing this, we had things called "charities" that people donated stuff to and they took care of those who fell behind. Now the government is taking the "donations" and doing the organizing, so why should people give money to anyone else to solve problems the government is supposed to fix? That's the problem with socialized charity -- people start losing track of personal responsibility to BE voluntary benefactors to others because they ARE already involuntary benefactors.

      That means that socialism is not the natural result of free markets, the result is charity. Socialism is a result of a distortion of the charity market by government assumption of responsibility.

      A wealthy member of a community, before this "genius" invention was made, would've been happy to organize large projects for the public good simply for the prestige of having been in charge of them.

      And many of them still do. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for one. Ronald McDonald House. St. Jude's Children's Hospital (Danny Thomas may not have given all the money to build and run it, but he certainly organized it.) Dave Thomas and his work for adoption. We have a local version of the McD house in our city, funded by the local Pepsi bottling company owner. Mario Pastega, I think it is. There is a heart wing bearing the name of the donor who built it across the street. There is the name of a local timber baron on a lot of things that his money built for the good of the people. The new engineering building on campus bears the name of the donor for that.

      Now they require that a portion of workers' labor be diverted to them permanently,

      Huh? People who stay at McD house have to divert a portion of their labor to Ray Crock's estate permanently? No, the generosity of the rich is not based on requiring a lifetime of slavery from the recipients. The people who are "diverting a portion of their labor" are doing so for money so they can buy things that other people have made, and the people who run the companies are not limited to "the wealthy" you denigrate. But the charity activities are just that -- charity.

      While it has made large projects easier to start, those projects have had less and less value to the common people over time.

      The fact that there are more and more common people over time is a pretty good reason why any one large project has less of an impact on all of them. There are also more and more large projects, and many more small ones. A local businessman who hands a $1000 check to a local charity is doing what he can just as much as (or more than) Bill Gates handing a billion to someone. The fact that the organization getting the $1000 only operated in a city or county and not globally, well, there's room for ten thousand more organizations for those locations, and they likely already exist.

      At this point, the labor market is an arrangement whereby you either build something you don't care about for a rich person, or you don't eat. It is functionally indistinguishable from slavery,

      Except that "rich person" may be your next door neighbor who is scraping by because he has a payroll to meet and health insurance to buy for you and the city is levying a special tax for some project. In fact, he's more likely to be your neighbor because there are a lot more small businesses than you think.

      And you working on something you don't care about is due to the specialization of society and the fact that not everyone can do the same job. You trade your labor doing something you don't like to do for money so you can buy things you want.

      And of course, it differs from slavery because massa can't whip you for being late back from lunch, and he can't stop you from quitting and finding a different job, and he can't even make you do something outside your job descr

  2. Fleeing abusive companies? by robinsonne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where are customers supposed to flee to? Many of these companies are de facto monopolies in many areas or at the very least in lock-step with their "competitors." There aren't very many choices for tech companies unless you want to do without, which is unpalatable for many.

    1. Re:Fleeing abusive companies? by Matheus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ^ This exactly (mod parent up).

      Every single company listed in the summary has little to fear from competition at the moment. They have no incentive to placate the user base so the corporate drive of "maximize profits and growth" goes unabated.

    2. Re:Fleeing abusive companies? by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's almost like large organizations have voting rights.

      What do you mean "almost"?

      They have more voting rights than you, me, or anyone.

      And you know what? We've got "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" who will fight you tooth-and-nail to defend that, in spite of their own interests.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Fleeing abusive companies? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Informative

      What do they mean "tech companies"?

      The abuse began back when telephone menus replaced human operators, music-on-hold by the hour became the norm ("Please stay on the line. Your call is VERY important to us.") and service in general became self-serve or no-serve.

      And hasn't been solely a tech company thing. It's been an every company thing.

      In fact, I dropped a pest control company in favor of a competitor because the competitor didn't run me through phone menu hell just to get them to come out, inspect, and get paid.

    4. Re:Fleeing abusive companies? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nononono, they don't have voting rights. They get to choose who you may vote for, and you then get to choose between their candidates.

      IIRC it's called "separation of power" or something like that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Fleeing abusive companies? by lucm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even when there is intense competition the service is usually bad, because then the companies are stuck in a price war (like the one in the cloud involving Amazon, Google and Microsoft) so resources are scarce for great customer service. And once a winner emerges from a price war, the service remains poor because the company can get away with it.

      This is not specific to the tech industry. A long time ago people were greeted by a small army of sharp-looking attendants at the gas station who made sure to check the oil, clean the windows and check the tires. Nowadays you are lucky to get the attention of a nonchalant clerk facebooking behind a 4 inch bullet-proof window when the pump does not accept your credit card directly or when you don't get a working code for the automated carwash.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    6. Re:Fleeing abusive companies? by xlsior · · Score: 5, Funny

      "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company"

    7. Re:Fleeing abusive companies? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Informative

      That "15 pages" is very misleading. I don't think RackSpace Hosting (#12) and a cellphone case store (#16) count as "ISP's"

    8. Re:Fleeing abusive companies? by Krishnoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pfft, that quote is so old. We have much newer, more relevant ways of describing your relationship to your cable/internet provider. Get with the times!

    9. Re:Fleeing abusive companies? by Prien715 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And you know what? We've got "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" who will fight you tooth-and-nail to defend that, in spite of their own interests.

      This. Further, there's the tortured logic of libertarian theology where taxing those who can pay is immoral, and that as a moral people, we must not victimized these poor, poor, wealthy people.

      The wealthy and powerful, on the other hand, have no problem voting their own interests as well as hiring pied pipers to convince the masses to vote against their own interests through propaganda. There's a reason why nominal wages haven't risen significantly in over thirty years while the stock market has: someone is making money and it ain't us.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  3. Where would we flee to? by Maxwell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Required comment: the big corps have won. Deal with it.

    1. Re:Where would we flee to? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I work for a big corp, and we don't treat our customers like crap.

      I think what you're looking at is companies like Comcast who have government guaranteed monopoly in the areas they serve. Smaller outfits or community broadband outfits are either forbidden from competing or are forced to pay exorbitant easement fees. Not by the federal government, but by the local governments. For companies in Comcast's position, there's no need to be concerned how you treat the customer, mainly because the local governments tell them not to worry about it.

  4. Customer/product by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember, if something is free you aren't the customer, you are the product and so long as they're not pissing off their advertisers these companies can do anything that doesn't significantly reduce their user counts.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  5. Free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't worry guys, the free market fairy will take care of it.

    The free market has taken care of it. Good customer service is expensive. Consumers have demonstrated that they are unwilling to pay additional money for good customer service. Successful companies have aborted customer service to keep prices low.

  6. People should leave. They Don't. by whistlingtony · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Right after the BP oil spill, I stood outside my house and watched cars go into an AM/PM for gas. Right across the road was a Shell (not that Shell is innocent or anything). I thought to myself "BP just did a Bad Thing, why are people buying from AM/PM? It says 'part of BP' right on the sign!"

    Perhaps it was habit? Perhaps it was that the gas was 5cents cheaper a gallon?

    This still bugs me to this day. Five cents a gallon, with each person having approximately a 10-15gal tank.. They couldn't or wouldn't spend 50-75 cents to send a message.

    There are already a lot of posts saying "where would they go to?". I get that. I do. But we still need to pull our heads out of our (not so) collective asses. There is only one thing that a company fears, and that is a drop in profit. As long as it's profitable to take advantage of us, they will. It's not THAT much effort to be a conscious consumer. People have been doing it with food. They just need to extend it to other things.

    1. Re:People should leave. They Don't. by idontgno · · Score: 5, Informative

      Perhaps it was habit? Perhaps it was that the gas was 5cents cheaper a gallon?

      A nickle a gallon? I'd buy gasoline made from pressed baby kitties and the condensed death agonies of the last endangered whales on earth for a 5 cents a gallon less than the local competitors.

      I guess that makes me part of the problem.

      And, of course, as other responders have pointed out, the BP pumps were stocked from the exact same local distributor as the Shell pumps across the street, and the Exxon ones up the road, and the "independent" one across town... and quite possibly all from crude from the platform and oil field that went "boom!".

      So unless you were willing to completely give up all petroleum products (including textiles and agro-chemical based foodstuffs), or drill your own well in your own back yard and build your own refinery, you aren't going to be able to avoid feeding the machine you hate. Welcome to the 21st Century.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  7. It's the sign of our times - we want everything... by MindPrison · · Score: 3

    ...FREE!

    When I was a kid, I learned the signs of desperation...bad customer service and expiring food...the first sign of any store going south. All the companies that had success, treated their customers with respect and didn't do any pennypicking. The first sign is ALWAYS pennypicking, the second sign is worker efficiency followed by unhappy overworked workers. The third and last sign, is when they're lashing out on their customer base, trying to fault the customers instead of their products - simply because they can't afford to fix it (and basically because we wanted cheap stuff for free to begin with).

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  8. Re:"abuse" by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

    agreed, Lets stop trying to lump twitter changing their web page, and facebook experiments at the same level of comcast harassing customers. there is a major difference between the 3

    no one pays to use FB or twitter, as such if they change their page for whatever reason, so what? if you dont like it go to myspace or whatever else is around or make a new site

    comcast harassing callers, and the new info dropped about their 20% upselling grade for techs is a legit concern when it comes to customer dissatisfaction. I think you are watering down the severity of comcast when you lump in twitter and FB making changes to their pages

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  9. Lesser of two evils. by geekmux · · Score: 4, Funny

    " Isn't it time customer starting fleeing abusive tech outfits?"

    Sure, would love to move. Where do you want me to go, Boardwalk or Park Place?

  10. Re:Been there, done that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    No Facebook account (and blocked in DNS), no Twitter account (also blocked in DNS), not a subscriber of a Korean telecom, not a Comcast subscriber, switched providers when German Telekom failed to provide timely service to a business which I supported. Not using Chrome, not using Google apps on my phone, not shopping at Amazon. Going to quit Slashdot if they force Beta on me.

    It's OK RMS, you don't have to post anonymously, we all know it's you.

  11. Flee? That's what they want. by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The best (most profitable) customer is the one that can be bullied into puting up with your bullshit. The demanding ones, the ones who know how the service should work and cause trouble when it doesn't measure up are worth getting rid of.

    Thank you, sir. May I have another?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Not putting up with jerks by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You don't have to put up with jerks.

    • Internet provider - Sonic.net DSL. No packet filtering, good support, no nonsense.
    • Phone - Caterpillar B15 ruggeized Android phone.. Bought from Caterpillar dealer, not carrier. Declined Google account at first power up. Google services disabled. No updates from Google.
    • Cellular carrier - T-Mobile. Has no control over phone. No carrier apps.
    • Email - IMAP server. SpamAssassin spam blocking.
    • Main desktop machine - Ubuntu 12.4 LTS.
    • No Google account. No Twitter account. No pay TV. Ad blocking on all browsers.
    • Main news source - Reuters. (More news about Ukraine and ISIS, less about Bieber and Apple.)
    • Main food store - Trader Joe's. No "club card" required. Good prices.

    For almost every crap business, there's a competitor that isn't crap. Find them.

  13. The "free market" rewards greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The "free market" rewards greed in all forms. It is intended to reward these behaviors.

    The entire purpose of capitalism is to turn the greed in human nature into a force of productivity. But the side effect is that it rewards that greed. One of the only things that can keep that greed in check is regulation. But that has a side effect of creating a separate power base and thus regulatory capture and barriers to entry and so on. So what's the next step? How do we watch the watchers? We need a new framework for productivity but I am confident we can find it. Civilization and democracy has reliably marched forward. The world has (mostly) ended slavery, brought reading and writing to the masses, eradicated diseases, put a man on the moon, and so on.

    This science of "how much the consumer will endure" is not limited to tech companies -- nor even customers. This is the approach of the corporation to all matters, legal, financial, PR, lobbying, etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. Sure there are a few good corporations, and some acts of altruism and benevolence. But the "free market" rewards greed.

    So we need a new framework for productivity, and we need to start looking now.

  14. Run away! Run away! by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't it time customer starting fleeing abusive tech outfits?

    Fleeing to where? Some other company where the service is just as bad or worse?

    I'm currently displeased with T-Mobile and the lies they told me about their "no overages fees" promise. I walked into AT&T and asked "how much to put your SIM in my phone?"

    "$20 a month for 300Mb data, unlimited talk/text". Oh, ok!

    "Plus $25/month to use a phone with that service." WTF? You can buy a service that requires a phone and then charge EXTRA to be able to use a phone with it? MY own phone, to boot?

    I could understand if you were adding additional devices to the service (two phones sharing one plan, e.g.). I could understand a charge to get a phone from them. But I consider it dishonest to separate out the plan from any devices that you need to have to use that service. It makes the cost look artificially low.

    $20/month! Great deal. $45/month, not so good anymore.

    Adding in that they charge for texts coming through the email to SMS gateway despite being "unlimited text", the service was more expensive for less product. I could choose to send a message to T-Mobile but it would wind up costing me more per month, and I have no reason to believe that AT&T's customer service is any better than T-Mobile's.

    So, it is likely that the idea of fleeing companies with bad customer service would only result in increased thrashing as 100 people move from company A to company B and 100 move from B to A, and 200 people find out that neither one is any good at helping them, and 200 people find out that they couldn't get as good a deal at their new provider as they had at the old.

    There is also the issue of the devil you know vs. the one you don't. AT&T may have better service, but they probably don't, and I already know how bad T-Mobile is. Changing providers for no benefit, added cost, and potentially no better service is a lose for me and T-Mobile probably wouldn't even notice.